United States v. Yepez

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4194

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROLANDO VERDINES YEPEZ,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (3:09-cr-00612-CMC-1)

Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 25, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

T. Kirk Truslow, TRUSLOW LAW FIRM, LLC, North Myrtle Beach,
South Carolina, for Appellant. James Chris Leventis, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Rolando Verdines Yepez pled guilty to conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, and

improper entry by an illegal alien. The district court

sentenced him to 150 months on the drug charge and 6 months on

the improper entry charge, to be served concurrently. Yepez’s

counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that, in counsel’s view, there are

no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether the

guilty plea was valid and whether Yepez’s sentence was

reasonable. Yepez was advised of his right to file a pro se

supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible

error, we affirm.

In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea,

this court reviews the adequacy of the guilty plea pursuant to

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. See United States v.

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Our review of the

transcript of the plea hearing leads us to conclude that the

district court fully complied with Rule 11 in accepting Yepez’s

guilty plea. The court ensured that Yepez understood the

charges against him and the potential sentence he faced, that he

entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily, and that the plea

was supported by an independent factual basis. See United

2
States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).

Accordingly, we affirm Yepez’s conviction.

We have also reviewed Yepez’s sentence and determined

that it was properly calculated and that the sentence imposed

was reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007); see United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir.

2010). The district court followed the necessary procedural

steps in sentencing Yepez, appropriately treated the sentencing

guidelines as advisory, properly calculated and considered the

applicable guidelines range, and weighed the relevant 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) (2006) factors. We conclude that the district court

did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence.

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 41; United States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178,

193 (4th Cir. 2007) (applying appellate presumption of

reasonableness to within guidelines sentence).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. This court requires that counsel inform Yepez, in

writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If Yepez requests that a

petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition

would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for

leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must

state that a copy thereof was served on Yepez. We dispense with

3
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4